Last week we had quite a row about temperature and temperature adjustments in Wellington New Zealand. One of the stations cited was the Kelburn district of Wellington, NZ.
NIWA issued a response statement regarding the charges leveled by The NZ Climate Science Coalition here:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise
They say:
Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.
NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
The NZ Climate Science Coalition responded with a series of graphs that showed how the temperature record of stations in Wellington looks:
And they write:
What’s interesting is that if you leave Kelburn out of the equation, Thorndon in 1910 is not far below Airport 2010. Perhaps that gave NIWA some confidence that the two locations were equivalent, but I’m betting Thorndon a hundred years ago was very different from an international airport now.
Of course we all know that airports tend to run hotter than surrounding areas due to the huge expanses of runway, tarmac, terminal buildings, and car parks they have become as aviation has grown in the last 100 years, so it is no surprise to see the airport hotter than Kelburn, which is higher in elevation and with a bit more greenery, owing to the nearby Botanical Gardens.
I had an interest in tracking down the Kelburn station, just to see how good it is. I was able to find it on Google Earth as an aerial view which you can see below. I was unsuccessful in my first attempts at finding a photograph to document the measurement environment of the Kelburn station. I picked up the hunt again a few days later, and found it hiding in plain site. Thank goodness for tourists.
You can see the Stevenson screen is surrounded by astronomical science, such as the historic Dominion Observatory and the Carter Observatory to the west (off screen). But from a climate science perspective, it is also surrounded by asphalt, with a car park to the east. According to the Google Earth measurement tool, vehicles are parked within 6 meters of the Stevenson Screen.
But I really really wanted to get a ground level view to absolute ascertain the placement of the Stevenson Screen. Lots of web searches turn up nothing. I found pictures of the observatories, pictures of the Krupp gun, pictures of the skyline, but no pictures of the nearby weather station. After all, other than myself and surfacestations.org volunteers, who takes pictures of weather stations while on vacation? Still I figured, this is a major tourist spot, within walking distance of the top of the famous Wellington cable car, surely somebody had snapped a photo?
Then I discovered something in Google Earth called “Panoramio”, which had a whole collection of tourist submitted shots around the observatories.
Bingo!
Here’s the full image from Panoramio, the Stevenson Screen is clearly visible. Thank you J. Baines, wherever you are.
The car park asphalt at 6 meters away puts the station rating at CRN4, based on NOAA’s site quality rating system used for their Climate Reference Network. I’ve found that the vast majority of historical stations in the USA have been affected this way:
One wonders how this area has changed over time, and how long the car park has been there, and how much it, and the tourist vehicles that park next to the fence have contributed to the Kelburn climate record. Someone familiar with the history of the observatory might be able to shed some light on this. Was the screen always in this location? When did the car park go in? How many tree have been cleared around the site over the years? How many new buildings (Like the Carter Observatory) have but put up nearby? These are all issues which affect the temperature record. Disentangling those influences is difficult without an historical context.
I don’t blame the scientists at the observatory for letting the climate measurement environment at Kelburn deteriorate, after all they are charged with looking upwards, not at the grounds around them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
D. King (16:05:44) :
pat (14:09:26) :
“History is made: papers’ single call
IN AN unprecedented initiative, 56 major newspapers in 45 countries are today publishing a shared editorial calling on politicians and negotiators gathering in Copenhagen to strike an ambitious deal on combating climate change.”
You can’t make this stuff up. Now we know why these papers and other news outlets have been burying the Climategate story. If you are busy building a consensus statement in favor of catastrophic man made global warming you can’t be distracted by a story that shows that most of the warming was Mann made. Thus the catastrophy part is wholly bogus. These editors are living the charge – Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. This is building up to be the most wonderful example of human foolishess and failure in a lifetime. People will laugh at this editorial forever and hopefully it will serve as a lesson to future journalists, scientists and politicians.
WSJ
Climate of Uncertainty Heats Up
Bloggers peer review a scientific ‘consensus.’
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574578012533089846.html
Congratulations Anthony on that honorable mention in The Wall Street Journal article.
“It’s interesting the subtle coercion that those with knowledge / info / authority can exercise over the media by granting or withholding access.”
This is the new coersion…
Beware of those that would threaten a cut off of information as the price for challenging their information.
What they really are after is to vent their opinions unopposed.
Is that part of the Scientific Method or good journalistic practice or open and transparent government.
No.
WUWT gets another honorable mention in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574578012533089846.html
Climate of Uncertainty Heats Up
Bloggers peer review a scientific ‘consensus.’
“… In addition to blogs, skeptics of global warming have used “crowdsourcing” to improve on the science supposedly done by professionals. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who was surprised by how local conditions affect the reliability of the 1,200 U.S. weather stations. Along with more than 600 volunteers, he found that almost all the stations violate the government’s standards by being too close to heating vents or surrounded by asphalt. …”
As a retired naval aviator, I am requesting that commentors suggest that weather stations not be sited at airports. Their purpose is to help predict daily flying conditions and not long term climate change.
EDITORIAL: Media complicity in Climategate
The global-cooling cover-up is not considered newsworthy
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/07/media-complicity-in-climategate/?feat=home_editorials
CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS are just one big Cluster… Sorry, I got to watch my language.
Fred H. Haynie (17:39:37) :
As a retired naval aviator, I am requesting that commentors suggest that weather stations not be sited at airports. Their purpose is to help predict daily flying conditions and not long term climate change.
=====
It’s a given that these records were not meant for the purpose for which they are now used. But surely they are more useful to show temperature trends than tree rings, lake sediment and ice cores? Of course lies told about any of these thermometers or proxies are still lies.
Airports need weather stations to predict near term conditions. Maybe we should suggest that weather stations sited for climate changes be called climate stations. We should site weather stations at airports and climate stations at locations that are least affected by anthropogenic changes like the Scripps CO2 sites or Mt Washington.
So, I’m wondering, is it good practice to take into account a wind-chill factor if you change measurement sites?
Hardly likely to be a factor in Wellington, though. Unless you happen to know a non-windy spot.
Anthony has that wind-chill is only for humans. I disagree. Any wet object will tend to be cooled by moving air, as evaporation is endothermic (takes out heat energy).
The thermometers taking these readings should not be allowed to get wet. I presume NIWA is professional enough to ensure this.
See here for a historical (1942-43) picture of the Carter Observatory.
http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/image/rsnz_72/rsnz_72_00_00341_0000f_ac_01.html
My only expertise on this is how to search “Carter Observatory” in Google Images, so make of it what you will.
See also this for comments on developments there:
“New Zealand’s National Observatory owes its origins to a bequest left by Charles Rooking Carter. The Observatory was opened in 1941 with its principal instrument an historic 9 inch (23 cm) refracting telescope.
During the 1960s, funding by the late Ruth Crisp was used to build a new two-story library and office wing, and purchase a 4 1 cm Boiler and Chivens telescope. Known as the Ruth Crisp ‘Telescope, it was installed in the Observatory’s second dome. In 1992 a visitor centre was constructed. This included the Golden Bay Planetarium, relocated from downtown Wellington.”
(www.friendswbg.org.nz/downhill9.htm)
If someone has any old and new maps of Wellington, that might help to put the changes in context – I haven’t been able to find any from a quick web trawl.
Am I being paranoid ie google have they stopped all “climategate” news from Dec 2 on?
The folklore about Wellington is that it blows a howling gale from the south three days a week, a howling gale from the north three days a week and the seventh is beautiful. That is probably an optimistic opinion.
I have watched a light aircraft take off from Wellington airport and be blown sideways over the Mirimar hills before it reached the end of the runway. It has been accurately described as an aircraft carrier wedged between two hills. On a windy day (in Wellington wind is above 50 knots, below that is a light breeze) small aircraft are banned and the jets are landed by flying them straight into the ground. The effect is something like a house hitting the deck.
I flew into it every week for two years. After the worst landing the hostess came on and said, “It is with some relief we welcome you to Wellington.” On another occasion the entire cabin cheered the pilots after we landed. Another passenger once said to me, “You could fly all the way around the world with your eyes closed but you would still know when you are coming in to Wellington.” Another time the pilot aborted the landing and headed off back into the clouds. Then he said, “We’re going back for another try”, and everyone groaned.
The nearby Rimutaka hills are famed for their horizontal icicles in winter.
In short, the chances of UHI affects in Wellington are not great. The air velocity mitigates against them.
So where did GISS get it’s figures for Wellington temperature?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=507934360010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
OT, but the science of climate change according to the SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-what-the-scientists-say-20091207-kdol.html
wow. just wow. bbc’s paul hudson really did let the cat out of the bag when he wrote that he received a ‘chain of emails’ on 12 october and that those being released thru the russian server were ‘authentic’:
Climate e-mails were hijacked ‘to sabotage summit’
Almost a month before they were posted on a website popular with climate-change sceptics, the hacked information was sent to a BBC weatherman who had expressed his doubts about climate science on his blog. The BBC has confirmed that Paul Hudson received some documents on October 12 but no story was broadcast or printed by Mr Hudson or the corporation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6946281.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164
I forgot one other feature of Wellington airport. When you are on a 737 and it is being tossed around as though it is on the ocean but it is still attached to the airbridge, you know you are in Wellington.
I can’t resist commenting that in “snowy” Houston, TX my home heat island thermometer recorded 33 while Undergound Weather was reporting 26.
If we’re going to spend trillions based on warming, I think we should at least have decent data.
Brnn8r or any other Wellingtonians,
try either the local city council building or the city libraries to see if they display any aerieal photos of the city from the past. It is not hard to take a decent close-up of the desired area with a digital camera, just angle the camera a fraction so that the flash doesn’t wipe-out the kelburn region.
Palmerston North City Council & library have numerous very large photos on their walls that go back to the early 50’s. Resolution isn’t quite as good as google but it should be good enough to identify buildings and paths etc. Perhaps Wellington has something similar? These sort of photos are excellent references for recent historical data. See how you get on.
Come on Anthony, You have too toot your own horn with this WSJ article sometime, with our help of course. How about first thing in the morning we have our own climate summit? We’ve had our own successful peer review study already.
“In addition to blogs, skeptics of global warming have used “crowdsourcing” to improve on the science supposedly done by professionals. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who was surprised by how local conditions affect the reliability of the 1,200 U.S. weather stations. Along with more than 600 volunteers, he found that almost all the stations violate the government’s standards by being too close to heating vents or surrounded by asphalt.”
WSJ
Climate of Uncertainty Heats Up
Bloggers peer review a scientific ‘consensus.’
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574578012533089846.html
rbateman (15:53:31) :
Glenn (15:28:56) :
“My point being that if you close down one station, then open another one some distance away, they are then unrelated.
You could have a semblance of calibration between the two had they both been run several years concurrently, but that didn’t happen.”
The NIWA trick being used here is that “Airport” is “calibrated” to be around .79C different to Kelburn for a period of years, used to justify adjusting Thorndon by the same amount.
But notice the “Airport” and “Kelburn” adjustment. How were these stations calibrated to absolute temperature? “Airport” could have been lowered .77C or .81C, which would make all the difference to a long term trend. There are some peaks in the Kelburn record that are lower than Airport, and some higher.
It appears to me that Airport was lowered by an arbitrary amount ( although they reinforce their reasoning with the lame temperature lapse rate rule of thumb). IMO, calibration in this case, and even in cases where two station records run concurrently, does not provide a differential with which to adjust actual temps of one or the other.
Jerry (18:52:02) :
I concur with your observation. In fact, I have found that not only does the Weather Underground have temps lower than the ‘official reported’ temps, I can reproduce the WU temps, as can many folks I know.
Either the ‘official’ sensors are daffy, or the reported temps are doctored.
This is an exercise (experiment if you will) that anyone can perform. Go find an official station, and take the temp nearby using a handheld (calibrate first).
You will be in for a surprise more often than you would think.
These are the types of articles that hooked me on this site a year ago. Good stuff.
What I noticed about the picture is it appears those are large tour buses parked along the curb. Those usually are diesel powered and they normally leave them running, not only do they stink but probably produce a good bit of heat – 6-7 meters away.
Sorry OT, new article from Revkin:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&hp